Vitamin D and the risk of dystocia: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Dystocia is one of the most common causes of cesarean section in nulliparous women. Studies have described the presence of vitamin D receptors in the myometrium, but it is still unclear whether vitamin D affects the contractility of the smooth muscles. We therefore aimed to determine the association between the vitamin D serum level at labor and the risk of dystocia.
METHOD: We conducted a case-control study between January 2012 and June 2017. Cases were primiparous women, with spontaneous onset of labor, who gave birth by cesarean section due to dystocia. Controls were primiparous women with a spontaneous vaginal delivery. We included 60 women (30 cases and 30 controls) in the analysis. The differences between cases and controls were assessed using chi-squared test for categorical variables and two-sample t-test or unequal t-test for continuous variables, as appropriate, after evaluation of whether they followed the normal distributions.
RESULTS: The mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations were 53.1nmol/l (95%CI; 45.2 to 60.9) among cases and 69.9nmol/l (95%CI; 57.5 to 82.4) among controls (P = 0.02). The mean plasma parathyroid hormone levels were 2.25 pmol/l and 2.38, respectively (P = 0.57). Even though 78% of all women reported taking a minimum of 10μg/day of vitamin D throughout pregnancy, 43% had vitamin D insufficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels below 50nmol/l.
CONCLUSIONS: In a Danish group of women having a cesarean section due to dystocia, we found decreased vitamin D levels.

Introduction

Vitamin D insufficiency during pregnancy is a worldwide public health problem [1, 2]. Studies have reported a prevalence ranging from 18–84% [1] depending on the county of residence and local clothing customs, with the Nordic countries having a high prevalence. In a Danish study, one third of all pregnant women had a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (S-25OHD) below 50nmol/l [3], which is the cut-off level for insufficiency according to the Danish National Board of Health [4]. This insufficiency is presumably due to the lack of dermal vitamin D production from October to April, resulting from the insignificant UVB radiation in the sunlight during this period. Maternal vitamin D insufficiency may be associated with several adverse pregnancy complications, including preeclampsia [5-7] and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) [8].

It is still unknown whether vitamin D affects the contractility of the myometrium. However, at least two pathways are likely: one involving the intracellular vitamin D receptor (VDR) and another related to changes in the calcium metabolism [9]. The VDR is a transcription factor that mediates most of the effects of vitamin D through regulation of the expression of several genes [10]. The VDR is present in non-vascular smooth muscle [11] including the myometrium [12]. A low concentration of extracellular calcium or inhibition of the entry of the calcium ion into the smooth muscle cell reduces the sensitivity to oxytocin and thereby affects the contractility of the myometrium [13]. Thus, the concentration of calcium, largely determined by the level of vitamin D, is of importance for labor contractions [9, 13].

As dystocia accounts directly or indirectly for 30–60% of all cesarean deliveries [14-16], we aimed to determine the relation between the vitamin D level at labor and the risk of having an acute cesarean section due to dystocia. We thus conducted a case-control study among a Danish population characterized by being homogeneous in terms of socioeconomic and nutritional status.

Material and methods

We included both cases and controls from January 2012 until June 2017 at the maternity wards at Aarhus University Hospital and Center Hospital Lillebaelt, Kolding. Due to other tasks as well as maternity leave and vacation held by the research group, there were weeks without inclusions, which may have elongated the inclusion period.

Inclusion criteria for the cases were primiparous women with spontaneous onset of labor and cephalic presentation of the fetus, who gave birth by cesarean section due to dystocia. Dystocia was defined in accordance with the local guideline (Table 1). The inclusion criteria for the controls were primiparous women with spontaneous, vaginal birth. For each case, a control was included within two weeks to ensure similar sunlight exposure. In order to avoid selection bias, the controls were randomly chosen from a numbered list of those eligible daily. All cases as well as controls were included within 48 hours after giving birth. The medical records were subsequently reviewed for all cases as well as controls to ensure they fulfilled the in- and exclusion criteria.

Table 1

Definitions of stages and phases of labor and diagnostic criteria for dystocia, modified from Kjærgaard [17].

Stage of labor	Definition of stage and phase	Inclusion criteria (dystocia)
First stage	From onset of regular contractions leading to cervical dilatation to full dilatation
Latent phase	Orificium < 4 cm	Cases not included in this phase.
Active phase	Orificium ≥ 4 cm	Progression of cervical dilatation less than 0.5 cm per hour assessed over 3–4 hours
Second stage	From full dilatation to delivery
Descending phase	From full dilatation to strong and irresistible urge to push	More than two hours without descent
Expulsive phase	Strong and irresistible pushing during the major part of the contraction	More than one hour without progress

We excluded women as follows: below 20 or above 40 years of age; with a pre-pregnancy Body Mass Index (BMI) over 30 kg/m2; of non-Caucasian origin; with complications of pregnancy (preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus or hypertension); giving birth before 37 or after 41 completed gestational weeks; with induction of labor (including PROM not followed by contractions); any mal presentation of the fetus like breech-, shoulder- and face presentation,; parathyroid-, renal-, liver- and, gastrointestinal diseases; diseases which affect the metabolism of vitamin D or calcium; and with drug abuse or consumption of more than 7 units of alcohol per week in the third trimester. In order to study women with dystocia because of reduced contractility of the myometrium, we excluded women with cephalo-pelvic disproportion/obstruction; obstetricians with more than 15 years of clinical experience made this distinction (NU, LH & MK).

Information about the pre-pregnancy weight, height, smoking habits, and the use of epidural analgesia during labor were obtained by reviewing the medical record. If the woman had smoked at any point during the pregnancy, she was recorded as a smoker. The last weight in pregnancy was self-reported at inclusion. Information about vitamin D supplement, if any, during the pregnancy was also acquired at inclusion by showing the woman a pictured list of all available vitamin D supplements.

Diagnostic test

We assessed the S-25OHD and the plasma parathyroid hormone (P-PTH) concentrations by obtaining blood samples at the day of inclusion between 9 am and noon (12 am) in order to avoid any influence by the potential circadian rhythm of PTH. None of the participants was receiving an IV infusion at the time of the venipuncture. Because the serum half-life for S-25OHD is about 3 to 5 weeks, we expect that S-25OHD levels was only minimally influenced by the short fasting or changes in dietary intake, which characterizes women giving birth. Each blood sample was centrifuged at 3,000 rounds per minute for 10 min, and then EDTA plasma and serum were stored at -80°C until analysis. After inclusion of all subjects, analyses were performed in batch. Serum levels of 25OHD were quantified by isotope dilution liquid chromatography—tandem mass spectrometry by a method adapted from Maunsell et al [18], and described elsewhere in detail [19]. The method quantifies 25OHD2 and 25OHD3, including the 3-epimer form that is not separated from 25OHD3. Calibrators traceable to NIST SRM 972 (ChromSystems, Gräfelfing, Germany) were used. Commutability was confirmed directly to NIST SRM 972 levels 1–4, and the sum of 25OHD3 and its epimer were compared. The mean coefficients of variation for 25OHD3 were 6.4% and 9.1% at levels 66.5 and 21.1nmol/l, respectively, and for 25OHD2 the coefficient of variation values were 8.8% and 9.4% at levels for 41.2 and 25.3 nmol/l, respectively [18]. P-PTH was measured using a second-generation electrochemiluminescent immunoassay (ECLIA) on an automated instrument (Cobas e601; Roche Diagnostics, GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). According to the manufacturer, the reference interval for PTH is 1.6–6.9 pmol/l. The lower limit of detection was 0.127 pmol/l, and total imprecision (CV %) was 3.3% at 3.69 pmol/l and 2.7% at 26.6 pmol/l.

Statistical analyses

The differences between groups were assessed using chi-squared test for categorical variables according to the Danish National Board of Health’s [4] predefined level of vitamin D insufficiency, and two-sample t-test or unequal t-test for continuous variables, as appropriate, after evaluation of whether the two samples had the same standard deviation (SD). In addition, a paired t-test analysis were performed, as appropriate for matched case-control studies [20]. Furthermore, we calculated correlation between studied variables by calculation of Spearman's oh (ρ). Statistical significance was defined as a two-tailed P value < 0.05. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA/IC 11.2.

We performed a linear regression analysis on the levels of S-25OHD and PTH according to the case and control status. We included the following predefined variables: maternal BMI at term, birth weight of the child, duration of gestation, maternal height, and the use of epidural analgesia during labor, which are known to be related to the risk of dystocia.

Finally, in order to increase the comparability of the two groups, we excluded the five cases with the highest pre-pregnancy BMI and their matched controls; the five cases with the highest BMI at term and their controls; the five cases with the highest birth weight and their matched controls; the five cases with the longest duration of pregnancy and their matched controls, as well as the five cases with the lowest maternal height and their matched controls; and repeated the analysis.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki II and approved by the Danish Regional Committee on Health Research Ethics (1-10-72-298-12) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (2012-58-006). Each participant gave written informed consent. All data used for this study are accessible through The Danish National Archive [21].

Results

From January 2012 until June 2017, we included 30 cases and 30 controls. The participation rate was generally high, with less than 10% of women refusing to participate in the study. The cases had a higher BMI at term; a higher gestational age; gave birth to larger infants and more cases used epidural analgesia during labor compared to the controls (Table 2). The average time between when a case and the matched control were included in the study was 3.3 days, with a maximum of 9 days. None of the included women took any drugs affecting the vitamin D metabolism or the birth process.

Table 2

Background characteristics.

Variable	Cases, mean	95% CI	Controls, mean	95% CI	P-value
N	30		30
Age at delivery (years)	29.4	27.6 to 31.1	28.4	27.0 to 29.9	0.40
Maternal height (cm)	166.1	163.5 to 168.7	169.4	166.8 to 172.0	0.07
Maternal pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)	22.6	21.6 to 23.6	21.5	20.7 to 22.3	0.09
Maternal BMI at term (kg/m2)	28.7	27.5 to 29.9	26.5	25.4 to 27.7	0.009
Duration of gestation (completed gestational weeks + days)	40+4	40+2 to 40+6	40+0	39+4 to 40+3	0.02
Birth weight (gram)	3791	3632 to 3950	3491	3369 to 3612	0.003
Women smoking in the pregnancy n (%) (chi squared)	2(6.7%)	NA	3(10.0%)	NA	0.64
Use of epidural analgesia during labor n (%) (chi squared)	13(43.3%)	NA	3(10%)	NA	0.004

Women with an acute cesarean section due to dystocia had a lower mean S-25OHD than women with a spontaneous vaginal delivery (53.1 nmol/l vs. 69.9 nmol/l, P = 0.02) (Table 3). This result did not change using linear regression adjusting for maternal BMI at term, birth weight of the child, duration of gestation, maternal height and the use of epidural analgesia during labor (P = 0.02). The paired t-test analysis displayed the same association (P = 0.008).

Table 3

Maternal S-25OHD and P-PTH levels after delivery.

Variable	Cases, mean	95% CI	Controls, mean	95% CI	P-value	RD	95% CI	RD adjusted	95% CI
S-25OHD (nmol/l)	53.1	45.2 to 60.9	69.9	57.5 to 82.4	0.02	16.9	2.5 to 31.3	19.3	1.3 to 37.2
P-PTH (pmol/l)	2.25	1.97 to 2.53	2.38	2.03 to 2.72	0.57	0.13	-0.31 to 0.56	-0.01	-0.5 to 0.5

Similar results were obtained by repeating our analysis after excluding the five cases with the highest pre-pregnancy BMI and their matched controls; the five cases with the highest BMI at term and their controls; the five cases with the highest birth weight and their matched controls; the five cases with the longest duration of pregnancy and their matched controls, as well as the five cases with the lowest maternal height and their matched controls.

Among the 60 participants, 47 (78%) had an intake of 10μg vitamin D per day or more during their pregnancy. Nevertheless, 26 women (43% of all 60 women) had vitamin D insufficiency defined as an S-25OHD level below 50nmol/l. The mean vitamin D intake were 8.2μg among women with vitamin D insufficiency, and 10.4μg among women with sufficient vitamin D level, (P = 0.13). Serum 25-OHD levels correlated significantly with daily dose of vitamin D from supplements (ρ 0.264; p = 0.04).

None of the participants had secondary hyperparathyroidism (PTH > 6.9 pmol/l), but 20% (23% of cases vs. 17% of controls) had PTH levels below lower limits of the reference interval (Table 4).

Table 4

Women with vitamin D insufficiency, hyperparathyroidism, and PTH below the lower limit.

	Cases		Controls
Variable	n/N	%	n/N	%	P-value
Vitamin D insufficiency; <50 nmol/l	16/30	53.3%	10/30	33.3%	0.12
PTH < 1.6 pmol/l	7/30	23.3%	5/30	16.7%	0.53
PTH > 6.9 pmol/l	0/30	0.0%	0/30	0.0%	NA

Discussion

This case-control study demonstrated a significant association between the S-25OHD and the risk of having an acute cesarean section due to dystocia. Furthermore, this study showed 43% of the participants to be vitamin D insufficient despite the fact that more than 78% had been taking 10μg or more of vitamin D per day during their pregnancy combined with a varied diet as recommended by the Danish Health Authorities [22].

A major strength of this study was the strict criteria defining cases with dystocia as well as the laboratory standards. However, the definition of dystocia is based on the local guideline, i.e. other definitions of dystocia could also have been used. In addition, the participants were generally healthy and homogenous in terms of socioeconomic and nutritional status. The cases and controls were matched on time of season to ensure our two groups were comparable regarding sunlight exposure and, thus, the level of dermal vitamin D synthesis. A limitation of this study was the lack of background information available on the women who refused to participate in the study (under 10%). Furthermore, in accordance with the local guideline the use of epidural analgesia was not addressed in the definition of dystocia, which might be considered as a limitation to the study. However, our results did not change when adjusting for the use of epidural analgesia during labor.

Known risk factors for dystocia include nulliparity, induction of labor, short maternal height, high maternal age, post term gestation and high birthweight [23-25]. In our study, we included nulliparous women and adjusted in secondary analysis for potential risk factors. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that other causal factors not taken into account could bias our results towards an association.

We found no secondary hyperparathyroidism despite 43% of the women being vitamin D insufficient. On the contrary, we found that 20% of the women had a P-PTH under 1.6pmol/l. A possible explanation for this could be a suppression of the maternal PTH by the parathyroid hormone-related peptide (PTHrP). PTHrP has been shown to be released from the cytotrophoblasts and amnion cells [26-28]. PTHrP is present in fetal and gestational tissue where it plays an important role by stimulating the maternal-fetal transfer of calcium through a maternofetal Ca2+ gradient in the placenta [28-30]. Another explanation could be the increased synthesis of 1.25(OH)2D during pregnancy, which also might suppress maternal PTH-production [31]. In further studies it could be of interest also to measure levels of 1.25(OH)2D in order to assess whether this active metabolite of vitamin D is of importance to the risk of dystocia.

To our knowledge, no previous study has tested the association between the S-25OHD level and the risk of dystocia. Two studies addressing the association between cesarean section and vitamin D insufficiency showed conflicting results, and both were hampered by limitations. A study on a Pakistani population found no association between the low level of S-25OHD and the risk of having an acute cesarean section [32]. However, the indication for the cesarean section was cephalo-pelvic disproportion and not dystocia. Furthermore, women included in the study were characterized by being malnourished in general. A study from Boston demonstrated that cases who had a primary cesarean section had a lower level of S-25OHD compared to the controls who delivered vaginally (S-25OHD median of 45 nmol/l vs. 63 nmol/l, p = 0.007) [33]. However, also in this study the indication for cesarean section differed from our study, given that only 17 of the 43 cases had dystocia, while the remainder had a primary cesarean as a result of non-reassuring fetal tracing (11 of 43), mal-presentation (6 of 43), and other indications (9 of 43) [33].

The external validity of this study should be restricted to geographic areas with sunlight exposure, clothing and dietary habits, and oral vitamin D supplementation comparable to those in Denmark. Despite the fact that this study displays a significant association between vitamin D and the risk of having an acute cesarean section due to dystocia, we cannot rule out the possibility that our results might be due to other causes or residual confounding. The fact that more than 53% of the cases were vitamin D insufficient supports our hypothesis although more studies are needed to fully elucidate the effect of vitamin D on the risk of dystocia.

Conclusion

This case-control study showed a significant association between the S-25OHD and the risk of acute cesarean section due to dystocia. Furthermore, more than 40% of the included women were vitamin D insufficient. In view of our results, evaluating the dietary pattern would be important in order to outline the vitamin D insufficiency among pregnant women. Furthermore, the Danish recommendation concerning vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may need to be reevaluated. However, more studies are needed in order to determine the optimal level of vitamin D supplements for pregnant women in order to lower the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and potentially reduce the risk of dystocia.

23 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-08882

Vitamin D and the risk of dystocia: A case-control study

PLOS ONE

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 31st July. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study the authors compared the serum levels of 25-OH vitamin D in a group of women delivered by cesarean section for dystocia with a control group of women who delivered vaginally. The experimental question is interesting and relevant, especially considering the increases in the cesarean rate for dystocia over recent decades. This should be considered a preliminary exploration of the issue, which may prove to be quite complex. But it raises an intriguing hypothesis concerning the role of vitamin D in the myometrium. For that reason I think it deserves publication.

There are several issues that I think should be addressed:

1. The abstract loses some focus when it shifts from consideration of the possible relation between vitamin D levels and the risk of dystocia to the need for more vitamin D supplementation (and the implication it might reduce the risk of dystocia). The latter is pure speculation not related to the study findings.

2. The definitions of dystocia used in the study are different from those of others. I realize this is a currently controversial area, but, for example, according to the traditional criteria of Friedman and also Rosen, a woman whose cervix is 4cm dilated is very often still in the latent phase of labor and should not be diagnosed with dystocia. Therefore, some of the study cases delivered for dystocia would have been in normal labor based on some commonly used definitions. Similarly, a woman in the expulsive phase with no descent for one hour has an arrest of descent. I think the manuscript should remind the reader that their definitions of dystocia (and of fetopelvic disproportion) are parochial and may not conform to those used in other geographic areas.

3. Why were patients with suspected disproportion/obstruction excluded? Was this to have a group with dystocia presumably due to poor contractility? If so, this should be explicitly stated. How and by whom was that distinction made?

4. Subjects were taking oral vitamin D. Is there a relationship between the oral dose and serum levels? If so, were the blood draws done at a uniform time in relation to ingestion?

5. Do the authors have 1,25(OH)2 levels from their subjects? If so, these might be helpful. Could changes in the active 1,25 metabolite (which reaches maximal levels at term) reflect myometrial function better than the more long-term stable 25-OH levels?

Reviewer #2: The paper “Vitamin D and the risk of dystocia: A case-control study” aims to evaluate the

association between the vitamin D serum level at labor and the risk of dystocia.

The authors included primiparous women with spontaneous onset of labor and cephalic

presentation of the fetus, who gave birth by cesarean section due to dystocia

(cases) and primiparous women with spontaenous vaginal birth (controls). They collected blood

samples to assess the S-25OHD and the plasma parathyroid hormone (P-PTH) concentrations

among the two groups of patients.

The conclusion was that in the group of cases decreased vitamin D levels were found resulting in a

significant association between the S-25OHD concentrations and the risk of dystocia.

The content of this study is interesting; it is relevant to investigate whether there is a significant association between decresed vitamin D levels and risk of dystocia in order to find out if dystocia during labour could be prevented or predected.

The paper is - regarding the topic and cited references - well written.

However, I have some comments:

Introduction

Line 62: “homogeneous in terms of socioeconomic and nutritional status” specify how the women nutritional status was assessed (food frequency questionnaire? nutrional questionnaire? Food diary?..”)

Material and methods

Table 1 The descending phase; specify the different criteria of distocya with or without epidural analgesia

Table 1 Kjærgaard et al. define as distocya criteria during the active phase of labor a “ Less than 0.5 cm dilatation of cervix/hour, assessed over four hours”. Why did you consider “3-4 hours” as diagnostic criteria?

Exclusion criteria: Was the use of epidural analgesia during labour considered as an exclusion criteria? And the use of drugs affecting vitamin D metabolism?

Line 107: use the abbreviations indicated, “P-PTH” for plasma parathyroid hormone rather than “PTH”

Conclusion

Line 205 “..more than 40% of the included women were vitamin D insufficient. In view of our results, the Danish recommendation concerning vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may need to be reevaluated”. Supplementation in pregnancy is important to prevent most of the adverse pregancy outcomes but an adequate evaluation of dietary pattern is the first step in order to find out nutritional deficiencies.

References

Line 296 there is a lack of information on publication

Line 299 there is a lack of information on publication

Line 301 there is a lack of information on publication

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

24 Aug 2020

Response to Reviewers

Reviewers' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

In this study the authors compared the serum levels of 25-OH vitamin D in a group of women delivered by cesarean section for dystocia with a control group of women who delivered vaginally. The experimental question is interesting and relevant, especially considering the increases in the cesarean rate for dystocia over recent decades. This should be considered a preliminary exploration of the issue, which may prove to be quite complex. But it raises an intriguing hypothesis concerning the role of vitamin D in the myometrium. For that reason I think it deserves publication.

There are several issues that I think should be addressed:

1. The abstract loses some focus when it shifts from consideration of the possible relation between vitamin D levels and the risk of dystocia to the need for more vitamin D supplementation (and the implication it might reduce the risk of dystocia). The latter is pure speculation not related to the study findings.

Thank you for this comment.

We have deleted the sentence from the abstract in accordance with your suggestion.

2. The definitions of dystocia used in the study are different from those of others. I realize this is a currently controversial area, but, for example, according to the traditional criteria of Friedman and also Rosen, a woman whose cervix is 4cm dilated is very often still in the latent phase of labor and should not be diagnosed with dystocia. Therefore, some of the study cases delivered for dystocia would have been in normal labor based on some commonly used definitions. Similarly, a woman in the expulsive phase with no descent for one hour has an arrest of descent. I think the manuscript should remind the reader that their definitions of dystocia (and of fetopelvic disproportion) are parochial and may not conform to those used in other geographic areas.

Thank you for making us aware of this source of confusion.

We rephrased in the manuscript in order to avoid confusion. It now reads as follows (Material and Methods; second paragraph);

“Dystocia was defined in accordance with the local guideline (Table 1).”

In addition, we added a comment to the discussion section (Discussion; second paragraph);

“However, the definition of dystocia is based on the local guideline, i.e. other definitions of dystocia could also have been used.”

3. Why were patients with suspected disproportion/obstruction excluded? Was this to have a group with dystocia presumably due to poor contractility? If so, this should be explicitly stated. How and by whom was that distinction made?

Thank you for this comment.

We see, that this was unclear in the manuscript, and we have added a comment about this (Materials and Methods; Study population, third paragraph);

“In order to study women with dystocia because of reduced contractility of the myometrium, we excluded women with cephalo-pelvic disproportion/obstruction; obstetricians with more than 15 years of clinical experience made this distinction (NU, LH & MK).“

4. Subjects were taking oral vitamin D. Is there a relationship between the oral dose and serum levels? If so, were the blood draws done at a uniform time in relation to ingestion?

Blood samples were obtained between 9 am and noon (12 am) in order to avoid any influence by the potential circadian rhythm of PTH. Of importance, we measured vitamin status in terms of 25-OHD levels, whereas vitamin D supplements are provided as cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). As the serum half-life for S-25OHD is about 3 to 5 weeks, we expect that the serum levels would be minimally influenced by difference in pattern (time of day) regarding ingestion of vitamin D supplements.

The manuscript has now been clarified by specifically stating S-25OHD when referring to serum levels (instead of stating “vitamin D levels”)

To further investigate the relationship between the oral dose and serum levels, we have calculated a Spearman’s oh, and added to the manuscript (Material and Methods; statistical analysis; first paragraph);

“Furthermore, we calculated correlation between studied variables by calculation Spearman's oh (ρ).”

In addition, we added to the result section (Results; fourth paragraph);

“Serum 25-OHD levels correlated significantly with daily dose of vitamin D from supplements (ρ 0.264; p=0.04).”

5. Do the authors have 1,25(OH)2 levels from their subjects? If so, these might be helpful. Could changes in the active 1,25 metabolite (which reaches maximal levels at term) reflect myometrial function better than the more long-term stable 25-OH levels?

An interesting aspect! Unfortunately, we do not have the 1,25(OH)2 levels from the included women, though this would have been of interest in regard to the final result. In the revised manuscript, we have now added this as a suggestion for further studies (Discussion; fourth paragraph);

“In further studies it could be of interest also to measure levels of 1.25(OH)2D in order to assess whether this active metabolite of vitamin D is of importance to the risk of dystocia.”

Reviewer #2: The paper “Vitamin D and the risk of dystocia: A case-control study” aims to evaluate the

association between the vitamin D serum level at labor and the risk of dystocia.

The authors included primiparous women with spontaneous onset of labor and cephalic

presentation of the fetus, who gave birth by cesarean section due to dystocia

(cases) and primiparous women with spontaenous vaginal birth (controls). They collected blood samples to assess the S-25OHD and the plasma parathyroid hormone (P-PTH) concentrations among the two groups of patients. The conclusion was that in the group of cases decreased vitamin D levels were found resulting in a significant association between the S-25OHD concentrations and the risk of dystocia.

The content of this study is interesting; it is relevant to investigate whether there is a significant association between decresed vitamin D levels and risk of dystocia in order to find out if dystocia during labour could be prevented or predected.

The paper is - regarding the topic and cited references - well written.

However, I have some comments:

Introduction

Line 62: “homogeneous in terms of socioeconomic and nutritional status” specify how the women nutritional status was assessed (food frequency questionnaire? nutrional questionnaire? Food diary?..”)

Thank you for this comment. The statement about nutritional status is more a general consideration regarding the Danish population and do not reflect any specific data. As we do not have any reference to include, we will remove this statement if the Academic Editor states this will be the most appropriate.

Material and methods

Table 1 The descending phase; specify the different criteria of distocya with or without epidural analgesia

Thanks for making us aware of this lack of information.

Today, most definitions of dystocia include the use of epidural analgesia, however, when this study was initiated this was not the case. This is a limitation to the study, and we have added to the discussion section (Discussion; second paragraph);

“Furthermore, in accordance with the local guideline the use of epidural analgesia was not addressed in the definition of dystocia, which might be considered as a limitation to the study.”

In accordance with your comment, we have reviewed our study population in order to outline the use of epidural analgesia during labor. We have performed a linear regression adjusting for the use of epidural analgesia during labor, which did not change the result. We have added to the manuscript (Material and Method; fourth paragraph)

“…and the use of epidural analgesia during labor…”

(Material and Method; Statistical analysis; second paragraph)

“…and the use of epidural analgesia during labor…”

(Results; table 2)

Use of epidural analgesia during labor n (%) (chi squared) 13(43.3%) NA 3(10%) NA 0.004

(Results; second paragraph)

“…and the use of epidural analgesia during labor (P=0.02)…”

(Discussion; second paragraph)

“However, our results did not change when adjusting for the use of epidural analgesia during labor.”

Table 1 Kjærgaard et al. define as distocya criteria during the active phase of labor a “ Less than 0.5 cm dilatation of cervix/hour, assessed over four hours”. Why did you consider “3-4 hours” as diagnostic criteria?

Thanks for this comment. The guideline used in this study did not adhere strictly to the guideline presented by Kjærgaard et al, but were modified in accordance with the local guideline.

Reviewer 1 also addressed the fact, that a local guideline was used in the study. We rephrased in the manuscript in order to avoid confusion. It now reads as follows (Material and Methods; second paragraph);

“Dystocia was defined in accordance with the local guideline (Table 1).”

In addition, we added a comment to the discussion section (Discussion; second paragraph);

“However, the definition of dystocia is based on the local guideline, i.e. other definitions of dystocia could also have been used.”

Exclusion criteria: Was the use of epidural analgesia during labour considered as an exclusion criteria? And the use of drugs affecting vitamin D metabolism?

The use of epidural analgesia was not addressed in the definition of dystocia, which is a limitation to the study. This limitation have been added to the manuscript (Discussion; second paragraph).

“Furthermore, in accordance with the local guideline the use of epidural analgesia was not addressed in the definition of dystocia, which might be considered as a limitation to the study.”

In accordance with your comment, we have reviewed our study population and found that no included women took any drug that potentially could affect the vitamin D metabolism or the birth process. We have specified this in the manuscript (Results; first paragraph).

“None of the included women took any drugs affecting the vitamin D metabolism or the birth

process.”

Line 107: use the abbreviations indicated, “P-PTH” for plasma parathyroid hormone rather than “PTH”

Thank you for this comment. We have changed the wording in accordance with the suggestions.

Conclusion

Line 205 “..more than 40% of the included women were vitamin D insufficient. In view of our results, the Danish recommendation concerning vitamin D supplementation and during pregnancy may need to be reevaluated”. Supplementation in pregnancy is important to prevent most of the adverse pregancy outcomes but an adequate evaluation of dietary pattern is the first step in order to find out nutritional deficiencies.

In interesting aspect! In accordance with our suggesting, we have added to the manuscript (Conclusion).

“In view of our results, evaluating the dietary pattern would be important in order to outline the vitamin D insufficiency among pregnant women. Furthermore, the Danish recommendation concerning vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may need to be reevaluated.”

References

Line 296 there is a lack of information on publication

Line 299 there is a lack of information on publication

Line 301 there is a lack of information on publication

Thank you for making us aware of this lack of information. We have now updated the reference list.

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Sep 2020

Vitamin D and the risk of dystocia: A case-control study

PONE-D-20-08882R1

Dear Authors,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

5 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-08882R1

Vitamin D and the risk of dystocia: A case-control study

Dear Dr. Thomsen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE